Case Document

100%

HCAL 1442/2020

[2023] HKCFI 1578

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1442 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

	NAVDEEP SINGH	Applicant
and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	8 June 2023
Date of Decision:	23 June 2023

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 10 February 2023 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of his proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 13 April 2023 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 24 February 2023, and hence he was almost 7 weeks late with his intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the applicant’s case, a delay of almost 7 weeks must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained in his affirmation and at the hearing of his summons that he was then (and still is) being detained at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution and had had difficulty accessing legal assistance, and that by the time he was able to get help from the welfare officer at the detention center, he was already out of time with his intended appeal.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 10 February 2023 to the applicant at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution without being returned through undelivered post, and as assistance from the welfare office would have been readily available within the detention center, I am not satisfied that there is justification for such serious delay of the applicant.

6.More importantly, the applicant also failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or his affirmation in which he just regurgitated his claim as before and his complaints about the decisions of the Director or the Board instead of focusing on the Court’s decision which he now seeks to appeal, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his summons. As such and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

7.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. I accordingly refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.